Agenda item

The Council received a presentation on the Sheffield City Region Growth Deal from Councillor Sir Steve Houghton, the Chair of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, and Mr Ben Still, Chief Executive, Sheffield City Region.

The presentation outlined Sheffield City Region’s Strategic Economic Plan and Growth Deal and City Region Devolution Deal and set out next steps in delivering the Growth Deals.

Members of the City Council asked questions and commented upon the issues raised in the presentation and responses were given as summarised below:-

A comment was made concerning the proportion of new jobs which would be highly skilled and the concern that remaining jobs would be minimum wage or lacking in ambition in relation to skills. In response, the Council was informed that 30 thousand out of the 70 thousand jobs which the Economic Plan aimed to create were highly skilled jobs. It was important to provide employment for people and then give opportunity to move on from less skilled jobs to more highly skilled ones. Not everyone would be expected to want a job which was in the highly skilled sector and a range of all forms of employment should be valued. Pay would be set by the labour market and demand for labour.

Questions were asked concerning practical steps which might be taken to improve bus services; how businesses would be made aware of support available through a marketing plan; methods of reducing investment risk for businesses and the identification of entrepreneurial enterprises that wished to expand. In response, Members were informed that there was deliberately no marketing strategy at this time. Firstly, the City Region had to be clear about its product and then work out how to sell it, to which audience and in what way. A comprehensive marketing strategy would be developed within the limits of available resources.

Those businesses most likely to be successful and help create growth had to be identified and encouraged as they may employ significantly more people in the future. There was also a need to move businesses, as with communities in the region, away from a culture of dependency. Business support would take place through the City Region Growth Hub model. The idea was for businesses to commit to using local labour and to grow within the region.

The Government had opened a door in relation to improving bus services and there was a level of caution concerning how much could be achieved without regulation. However, the deal did commit the Government to push the boundaries with regard to bus services, including in relation to the cost of fares (in line with competition laws) and improving the ticketing and fare offer.

A comment was made about the relative centralisation of the UK and the requirement for more control of the region’s own affairs, which included political leadership. In reply, the meeting was informed that the Combined Authority had been chosen as the appropriate executive governance model and it was important for the Combined Authority to ensure that this model of governance delivered necessary leadership and regional control. Referenda had taken place in the City Region with regard to the idea of an elected mayor and many places had rejected the proposal. The City Region did not have fiscal devolution or an ability to raise taxation. However, through the Combined Authority, all of the participating local authorities had agreed to sign up to the Strategy and to align their respective spending. This may not have been possible with a Mayoral model. The Strategic Economic Plan was a driver for change. Consideration would be given to the changes needed to remove identified obstacles, including financial considerations, powers or political change.

The Mayor of London had considerably greater financial resources at their disposal, for example the ability to spend on transport infrastructure, which was many times that of the Sheffield City Region. The challenge was whether change could take place in this region to improve things for people in the region. Devolution would not itself create a northern powerhouse but that did not mean that we could not ask for more powers to do things that we know we can deliver better than government was able.

Comments were made concerning the use of proven success by the City Region to then obtain further powers; the differences to the Manchester devolution deal in that there was not reliance on primary legislation; retention of skilled graduates; the development of a skilled workforce; the importance developing and then producing products in the Region and the potential national and international growth of such enterprises. It was thought more realistic to look at investment as opposed to grants to businesses and there was concurrence with the idea that the Region was able to do many things better than central government.

Responding to some of those comments, the Council was told that the north of England was losing many people to London and the South. The question was: how could the City Region produce and retain a skilled workforce and reduce the knowledge transfer. Places such as Oxford and Cambridge also had research capability and Sheffield City Region had to build its own research hubs and grow spin-off industries on a larger scale.  Supply chains also had to be strengthened. However, other meaningful forms of employment had to be created as well.

Universities were giving consideration to more entrepreneurial enterprise programmes and outlets in the Advanced Manufacturing Park were being encouraged to develop into manufacturing industries. Businesses also needed certainty in relation to such things as access to finance.

Comment was made that people who were now in their 30s and had previously moved away to London could be encouraged back to the City Region where their circumstances had changed and they were looking to have families or have less distance to commute to work. Young people leaving school also had to be helped to be ready for work and not move into a position where they were neither in training, education or employment.

In response, Members were informed that programmes would be developed in schools to help young people to become work-ready. Viable, non-academic routes, such as apprenticeships were also needed for young people.

Comments and questions were asked about engagement with parents as to the inspiration and aspiration they could provide for their children; the proportion of micro-businesses with which work was being done; expertise in the Growth Hub; and the environmental aspects of the Growth Deal.

Members were informed that the Growth Hub was a strong partnership which included the Chambers of Commerce and Federation of Small Businesses and a cohort of businesses who were able to share experiences. There was a range of expertise. Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) comprised 92 percent of businesses in the region and there were only a small number of ‘blue chip’ companies. The measures in the Growth Plan were specifically targeted at SMEs, as these were where most growth would come from.

It was important that young people saw parents going to work as role models and if people were able to work, then they should. The Region also needed to ensure that its schools were good enough. Something akin to the London Challenge may be appropriate for the area. Aspiration was a problem if people could not see jobs and opportunities and local Councillors also had a responsibility to help raise people’s aspirations.

A question was asked as to whether the respective local authorities in the City Region were mature enough to think regionally and collectively and in response, Members were told that this was a key challenge for the City Region, although there was a definite desire to work together. It was thought that a place like Manchester was effective at presenting a single picture to the outside world. However, there were inevitably internal differences. The City Region’s investment plan was intended to develop the right schemes in the right places.

Responding to a comment concerning the possibility that the Sheffield City Region had lost out on the possibility of better powers because it had rejected the concept of a mayor (which Manchester had adopted), Members were told that the other leaders in Manchester would be able to veto a decision of the Metro-mayor. This was unlike the London Mayoral model. So far, it was not thought that the City region had lost out on powers and a step by step approach was being taken to devolution. The regulation of bus services may not be an end in itself as the Region would need to fund and prioritise such a development. Transport for London worked because of the considerable amount of investment given by Government.

A governance model was required which could deliver the Strategic Economic Plan and if the Combined Authority was not the appropriate model, then this may have to be changed.

Comments and questions were raised concerning the road infrastructure links to the Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the potential expansion of freight and long distance flights; the status of the bid to the European Social Fund (ESF) to build capacity and social resilience to help get people back to into work; and the supporting mechanisms such as work in schools, transport fares and provision of locally based employment.

In reply to these points, Members were informed that the Airport was one of the key strategic drivers and SCRIF (Sheffield City Region Investment Fund) would help to enable the new link to the Airport and there were further plans to improve connectivity to the Airport. The airport planning process was also a consideration in terms of how well it served carriers and passengers.  The ESF was included in the process of achieving the Growth Deal and the Region had difficulty in persuading the Government to release its grip in that regard. The priority was to get that aspect of the Deal working.

The relationship between local authorities and their communities had to change as it was not sustainable to continue with the relationship as it had been. Greater capacity and resilience had to be developed in communities and this may change aspirations.

A comment was made concerning the need for homes, including the social housing and private sector, the growth of which could be brought about by the Sheffield Housing Company. In response, Members were told that engagement was necessary with the Homes and Communities Agency to unlock the assets necessary to enable housing development. This could be achieved by placing resources for the building of homes back with each local authority.

A question was asked concerning whether there was sufficient internal challenge in the Local Enterprise Partnership by the private sector and in response; Members were informed that the right people from the private sector were required. The Combined Authority had to take a leadership role.

The Council noted the information reported in relation to the Sheffield City Region Growth Deal and thanked Councillor Sir Steve Houghton and Mr Ben Still for their presentation.

(Note: The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Talib Hussain) Chaired the meeting for this item of business, the Lord Mayor (Councillor Peter Rippon) having left the meeting.)